Gay marriage upheld, or were we held up?

All other court cases related to the legality of gay marriage are moot.

The entire debate over “gay marriage” is moot.

Why? Because it’s a separation-of-church-and-state conundrum.

The USA was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. If we accept this premise, it logically follows that the matrimonial covenant is one that a man and a woman establish between themselves, blessed by a cleric. That covenant requires a commitment to maintain and share the good of the heterosexual spouses, including the procreation and education of children.

As such, marriage is an institution within the realm of the church. That the state has co-opted marriage to make it a legal issue crosses the church vs. state line. Yes, that means people married in front of a justice of the peace are not truly married; they are simply joined in a legal civil union.

Had the Supreme Court accepted a case in which the justices were to rule on the constitutionality of civil unions — entitling gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals to co-habitate and enjoy all the legal rights and privileges (emphasis on secular rights) enjoyed by heterosexual couples – well, that would have been a different story. And this essay would not have appeared.

Friday’s ruling might be seen as a victory for the gay-lesbian community, but it’s a serious moral defeat for the nation as a whole, because it allows the tail to wag the dog. Contrary to liberal thinking, when it comes to marriage, gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgender individuals are not equal. Yes, they were born equal as human beings. But after that, either genetics or choice took over, and that upset the “equality” apple cart. They looked into the mirror, and they saw that they were freaks of nature. And then, they started coming out of the closet, determined to secure for themselves a locked-up channel in the mainstream of married couples. Friday’s ruling did that, for now. Friday’s ruling elevates the unusual to the usual. It allows the unnatural to subvert the natural.

Does a farmer stock his chickenhouse with roosters only and expect an outcome of eggs and baby chicks?

Does a pasture filled with bulls and no cows extend the species?

Do male fish, as a rule, seek out other male fish in the hope that more male fish will be created? Ditto for female fish.

Do the birds of the air bond together as pairs of the same gender to build nests and create young to carry on their fine feathered traditions?

We have sullied the matrimonial covenant. Do we now take the Bible and traditional philosophy and theology out of God’s hands so we can rewrite it to satisfy the imperfect realm of humankind? The new Bible will have to state that the matrimonial covenant now applies to a man and a woman – as well as to a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a woman who used to be a man hooking up with a man who used to be a woman, and a hermaphrodite pledging fidelity to another hermaphrodite.

This nation was right to make racial segregation illegal. The high court was unerring to declare that the federal government cannot force raisin farmers to give up part of their annual crop for less than it’s worth. The supremes a century ago were correct to declare the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in the infamous Dred Scott case. The nation’s highest court acted righteously in striking down oppressive child-labor practices. In sum, the U.S. Supreme Court was justified in declaring unconstitutional these and about 1,300 other laws adopted by the U.S. Congress. Same-sex marriage should have taken its place among them.

I’m sorry, President Obama. When it comes to marriage, this is NOT “a one-size fits all” nation. No central authority should be allowed to override the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” What constitutes marriage is NOT a power delegated to the feds. Some states simply do not want to rationalize gay nuptials and marginalize the ethics of their traditional standards.

Mr. Obama, you said Friday’s ruling will not shift hearts and minds. And for once, you are correct. Friday’s ruling will make those opposed to gay marriage dig in their heels deeper. I can’t wait to see the next legal step taken by the great body of this nation’s probate judges.

Mr. Obama, you said Friday that “we’ve made our nation a little more perfect.” Again, you are misguided. Friday’s high-court ruling made the USA quite a bit more imperfect. Not to mention the further erosion of its once-revered exceptionalism.

I have no problem with someone being gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender. That’s their choice, or their God-given genetic burden at birth to bear. Frankly, I liked it better when I didn’t have to ask, and they didn’t have to tell.

But now that the rainbow genies are out of the bottle, it’s a forgone conclusion that they’re not going back into the closet. Once again, those in the majority have become the oppressed.